Talk:Ray LaMontagne/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
To uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 27, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Just a few concerns as listed above, on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Awards section: It would be appropriate to mention the major awards here, rather than just having the link to another article.
 * Lead: this could do with slight expansion to more fully summarise the artcile as per WP:LEAD.
 * The stray sentence at the end of the biography section needs rescuing. Please consider re-arranging this section into balanced paragraphs.
 * Overall the prose is reasonably good, although as usual there is room for improvement to improve the flow.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I found two dead links using this tool. No archived versions were available at the Internet Archive.
 * ref #11 fails verification
 * One citation needed tag requires attention (August 2009)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * No progress made in seven days so delisting. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article has a lot of information and nice photos. It has the potential to have GA status again. At present there are a lot of problems with the writing (prose). For example the Lead is awkward, contains too much detail and does not properly summarize the article. So I am going rewrite the lead and clean up the writing style in the entire article. Then I will resubmit it for GA approval. If anyone wants to help or discuss changes here on the talk page, I welcome their participation. cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I haven't been back for a while. I'll try to work on this article some more. Not sure I will resubmit it for GA review though. We'll see.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)